the galah

the latest comment that makes no sense to me again comes from mr peden,who in the short hrnz press release about the cambridge meeting that was cancelled said "we are looking at putting some of the stakes cambridge lost this week back into the region,just how it looks is to be determined" Now what is the logic behind such a comment. Does he not realise there was a race meeting 2 hours up the road that the horses from cambridge could have started in. Or why couldn't they have just said ,hey lets transfer those 4 races they could have held at cambridge,to be run at auckland.even use the same nominations to select the fields,run them for the same stake or whatever. Why is mr peden saying things that encourages people to say,hey if we don't go to auckland then we will get a bigger stake down the track. does mr peden not realise that the shortage of horses was caused by,you guessed iit ,a shortage of horses. Wheres his consistency. hes never said before that when there were programmed races at cambridge that weren't run he thought they should do the same.. i.e. when they only run 6 races,if his thinking is consistent,why hasn't he said the stake from the races programmed and not run on those nights, will go into the region. Why did they just add 4 new meetings to next years calendar in the auckland region.Can't they work out they don't have enough horses in that region to justify that. Also,where is the proof that running races like the southern surge or the golden gait or whatever,with the increased stakes,generates more overall starters throughout the year. If you look at auckland.all i see was people aimed at the bigger stakes,but did they actually race more over the season or will they do so in the future. If hes a so called data man,can he show us the data which says its more beneficial to put the money into high stake races on certain nights than it is to apply the increased stakes in lesser amounts across the board of all racing. these are the people at hrnz who came up with the 2 year old bonuses,which have done nothing to increase th number of starters in 2 year old races. These are the same people who said having a million dollar nz cup was needed. Where is the evidence having big stakes for those races did anything to get the connections of the horses at that level to start more in other open class races throughout the season. Also what strikes me about the auckland trainers is,put simply,they are far more wealthy on average than anywhere else in nz. Yet they are the ones HRNZ think need the support more. How does that make sense. oh well,in my opinion,its all just groundhog day.

i was just reading a study in sweden about whip use and whether it makes horses go any faster. they measured the horses speed 25 times every second in some swedish harness trotting races over the last 400m. Basically their findings could be summarised as whip use could make the horses run a bit faster,but that whip use in the last 100m actually makes the horses run slightly slower.. To use their words,the study found whip use seemingly pointless in making horses run faster overall. the study suggested that the whip use in the last 100m of a race making them run slower,was because of negative reinforcement. In other words they theorised the average horse has had the whip applied previously,that its slowed down previously as its got tired,so now whenever the whip is applied that is how it will respond each time. thats why they concluded the speed the horses ran over the last 50m of a race was generally slower than the previous 50m. it also noted more experienced drivers did not use the whip as much, because the drivers had come to the realsiation similar to what the study had concluded. actually i once bought a book by a fellow trevor payne,he called it fair means or foul,which referred to his time in england when a new zealander invested a lot of time and money in trying to establish harness racing in england.I lent that book to some about 20 years ago and he up and died and the family couldn't find it when i went to get it back.Anyway he said he always knew if he was going to win or not,because if the fella beside him went for the whip before he did he knew it would stop before his horse did,as thats just what he had seen countless times. Pretty much the same thing as the study concluded.It was an interesting enough read. he said in it about how they didn't use to have photo finished when he was there for a start and if he was in a close finsih he would always come back quickly and raise the whip and come in first ,before the judge gave his call and that he won a lot of races that he didn't think he had been first past the post.

actually mr steele, in an interview about 4 months ago said ,when asked what the % of money bet on the tote and on fixed odds was at that point,said about 60% ff and 40% tote. Maybe he included all the tote pools in that,he didn't say..Not sure how accurate he was,but you would hope its a bit more than that going through the ff as the tote pools are very small. the pools since the gallops meetings started on sundays haven't been great and the gallops going to a sunday meeting seems to have been a dumb move by them,which hasn't helped them or the trots either. like the gallops had a $100,000 race with a full field and plenty of form today and their win pool was only $7682 and $3716 place pool.. The non win pace at addington which started just before that had a win pool of $7503 and place of $3787.. Mind you,that one they had a wee delay pre start and as i've pointd out many times,any delay,even of a minute or 2 always boosts tote pools.

well he drove it well today,made the right moves but it lacked much zip. . its not as good as the winner anyway,so was really only running for 2nd,but given the run it got it should have run 2nd ,not 4th.. you gave to take your chances when you can win as you never know what may happen next week.if they stick to the amateurs and he drives,it may still get a win soon with a good draw,although may need to produce its better form to do that.

yes. in that same press release it says they have scrubbed 9 of the 15 ,and names them. But they also said in the same press release they have 6 new meetings and then named more than 6. isn't that an indication the numbers people aren't good with numbers. they are either poor with numbers or poor with the wording they use to describe their numbers. In this case it comes acrros that they can't add even small numbers(again)..

can anyone follow the press release on the hrnz website. it says "for harness it features 6 additional race dates compared to the 2024/25 season.They are addington(2),auckland (4),including 1 at ruakaka,methven,banks peninsula and oamaru(2)." i mean,whatever way you read that press statement,it doesn't add up to 6. Thats not the first time they have realeased statements that made little sense around figures.

The big players ,put simply,are more professional in how they lobby,influence and have greater access to industry leadership. They know how to play the game and are good at achieving results that look after their self interests.. So tabman,you have to recognise that is at play instead of just ignoring it. the likes of House and Jones float between the big race days and small racedays. If you want people who are aware of what the people are thinking at the likes of the grass track meetings that generate the profit making income for the sport,then house and jones would be the most obvious examples of who you would turn to. what does the likes of greg hope say. He would also have his finger on the pulse. lets aso be honest,no one can deny the reduction in small time breeders and the reduction in small time licence holders that has occured in recent years. Its not just a last 12 months thing, The reason those people have exited from the sport is mostly a combination of dissolusionmen seeing others being prioritised at their expense,being no longer affordable due to the cost of living of everyday existence and the lack of suitable facilities to use. so the collective voices of the small time players have become smaller and fragmented. In all the years i've followed harness racing ,in my opinion, the current leadership is the most out of touch with the grass roots players within the canterbury region who are exiting the industry.. why they are prioritising other regions and neglecting canterbury,when canterbury runs the most meetings that can generate profits, is of great bewilderment to me. i think its going to end up a very bad self inflicted wound going forward.

. it did cause a lot of ill feeling and friction and will cost hrnz a substanial amount of money,so i really don't think it could be called a clever move gammalite.But while it was a serious topic for those involved ,it wasn't for me and i find it interesting that you took what i said so seriously.

you say i mock,chief calls it fake news. obviously i have a different sense of humour. I know if someone was poking a bit of funonvolving me, i certainly wouldn't be offended. In fact i have always been able to laugh at myself,so top speak. But hey,we are all different i suppose.I have no problem with what i posted even if you or others do. as to you thinking it was a good move to expand the field with changed conditions. well the report said hrnz could,but didn't think they should have. now HRNZ will pay out around an extra $30,000. but hey,maybe they have plenty in the kitty to throw away.

the independent review makes interesting reading. so,i thought i might put out my own findings ,based on their findings. It all started on a sunny waikato morning at the waikato stables of galloping and trotting trainer graeme rogerson. there rogie and his foreman, well the foreman seems to remain unidentified in the official report,but lets just say we will make up an alias,say j/s,not knowing what his name is. So there they were ,spotted leaning on a fence,sunlight glistening on their freshly polished foreheads.. then they got to talking. Rogie.. "i see that young guns trotting final will have a small field"...is our horse yeah nah going to qualify" j/s.. "yeah nah..doesn't qualify rogie.. yeah nah the horse doesnt qualify or yeah nah ,doesn't qualify." j/s..exactly rogie...no i meant is yeah nah going to qualify next week at the trials J?S ..what you want yeah nah to qualify rogie...didn't i just say that J/S yeah nah... rogie.. are you getting lippy with me son J/s...what Rogie...just get yeah nah qualified J/S o.k. boss muttering under his breath why would anyone call a horse yeah nah. and thats how it all started,just a simple misunderstanging over what the initial pause in the conversation about a horse with what turned out to be an appropriate name. Will we never know whether rogie was referring to a qualifying trial to be run the next week,like it apparently was entered for,or was it the young guns final. Well we will have to wait ill his memoirs are written. But we know the foreman took it to mean the young guns final. so j/s contacted the northern handicapper(N/H),who then called the national hrnz handicapper(hrnz /h) so this is possibly how the conversation went between the 2 handicappers n/h..i got a call from j/s and hes saying his boss wants his 2 year old yeah nah to qualify for the young guns hrnz/h.. but he doesn't n/h..but can you change it so he can hrnz/h.. well if i did that all hell would break loose,there would be calls for my head,claims of unfairness and corruption,it would set a terrible precedent....um...let me think about it....um hang on i will toss a coin heads we do,tails we do, n/h...did you say heads we do,tails we do, hrnz handicapper,yeah 50% chance. thats what i always do in these confusing type of situations. hrnz /h heads o.k. i will arrange it,but lets just keep it on the q/t as we don't want people knowing n/h..mums the word so they publish the changed conditions but tell no one Yet way down south,on a day when the horses can't be worked because of what they call just a light shower in invercargill.i.e. 24 hours of heavy rain,inside is a trainer called n/w and n/w is on the hrnz website and low and behold,he stumbles upon the new race conditions...n/w to his wife..look i can run our trotter in that big race at auckland worth $50,000../n/w wife,.what,how can they change that n/w well it is hrnz...wife..well,that explains that,but whats to stop them changing it back,...n/w rings the owner n/w..we off to auckland...owner..great..we could do with another holiday. i've only had 2 in the last 3 months,see you in auckland. little did they know that they had stumbled upon a wasps nest of controversy,as down in little old temuka a former member of a ranfurly shield winning team,a bear of a man,had been awoken from his hibernation in a cave out the back of the temuka hotel, after receiving a call from his trainer...the conversation ,i would guess,went something like this. m/jj...ross....r/m....hhhrrrr m/j ross,you would never guess what HRNZ have done r/m...hhrrr this better be good as i was in the deep sleep part of my hibernation m/j theyve changed the conditions of the race wev'e set your horse for to allow others who shouldn't be allowed to start in the auckland race,i mean wtf,how can they do that....r/m...wtf did you just say, m/j...i mean wtf r/m...wtf,those dirty f north islanders,they did the same when we played wellington. Grant battys not the handicapper is he,because if he is i'm going to f.. m/j ..,no its the christchurch handicapper who ok'd it,i mean wtf well i will have to end the story there as its getting a bit long for me,but the above sounds about what most likely happened to me

i realise that. But the point being made was house and jones horses did not meet the criteira for the series of being based with a southland trainer since 1 july. that house has previously shown horses he has sent to southland as being located at t dewes training establishment,which is not what is occuring now that the southern surge has come around. so it appears that both house and jones have changed the way its recorded ,to meet the criteria to be eligible for the southern surge. also you seem to be saying mark jones also has lways had a registered training base in invercargill.Did mark jones know that? So why aren't the likes of the telfers shown as traing from winton when they go south. After all,they have a lot more horses race in southland than mark jones does. so are we to see house having registered training establishments at palmerston north? I am saying,all this came about because the southern people,according to what it had on a hrnz story,unfairly excluded trainers who regularly supported their meetings in the first place.

gee its in to $6.50 and a $1.60 a place. i'm a bit like nowornever. I too have backed it,actually in its last 4 starts. It just never had much luck and last start it was taken on and in the end the driver handed up the lead with 900m to go and i felt that wasn't a great move and the horse just knocked off a bit then.It may have run a place otherwise. But $6.50 its now paying is too short for mine. The fields a handy field,but on its best form for r holmes could place. it always gave me the impression its a trier and willing so it wouldn't surprise me if it had been working well for the new stable. I would guess it used to be a good track worker for homes as well. That harriets moment does have clearly the best recent form,but its only paying $2.30 now which is not a price i would back it at myself as its a bit one paced and needs to be driven with a bit of aggression in a race like that to ensure the race is run to suit and thats not ideal. that race theres 3 or 4 payinga bit over the odds,i guess due to the support for the 2 favorites. actually i always thought that midnight diamond would be an ideal manawatu horse once those meetings start up again. The likes of house or dickson could win $20-30,000 over 6 months up there if it ran up to its capabilties and maintained good manners.

As long as they have plenty of funds to run those 5 horse 2 year old races,with all the bonuses,i'm a happy man. I guess it will be the tuesday type meetings at addington that have gone? If thats the case i suppose it would indicate what we already know about hrnz's priorities. Just a guess,but those who competed at those meetings will see that,realise they were right all along in thinking they are not a priority for hrnz. whats new i suppose.

So your saying jones and house had blazing knuckles and super fund at their invercargill satelite stables,trained them in invercargill, then transported them back to canterbury to race and trial in july, without racing in southland. Gee they would be racking up the transport costs wouldn't they. So thats what you believe i guess. . And your saying the likes of house has always had the horses he had based in invercargill,shown under m house,invercargill. Why then has he previously advised they are with the likes of t dewe,when they were all along at his invercargill base,like you say.

also,the coalition for the protection of greyhounds websites,keep regularly updated stats as to greyhound deaths and injuries on the tracks within australia.. e.g. 73 on track deaths and 6280 injuries according to their website,so far in 2025. it lists specifics. for each death. you can see most of the deaths are a result of interference. so its sort of different in a way to horse racing, the actual racing is a lesser factor that causes the deaths or injuries to the horses. Especially harness,they have very few deaths due to racing.That comment is not to lessen the horse deaths,just an observation.as to when they occur.

the greyhound NSW inquiry,which was to ensure a viable and sustainable future ,is suppoised to release its report by today,(31/7/2025).Previously the report date had been extended twice for several months,due to the volume of submissions and evidence taken at the hearing. that will be interesting reading.

You would assume HRNZwill use the same reasoning behind reducing canterbury meetings,to how they assess the number of north island meetings.I guess this will be another lesson on HRNZ's honesty and fairness, in how they treat different regions. LOL. Doesn't sound good for the northern district which continue to run meetings with small numbers that generate big losses. maybe lose a couple of dozen northern region if addington has lost 4?

i was listening recently to brad steele interviewed on the alumni racing show. I think the interview was dated about 3 months ago. what struck me was mr steele seemed to genuinely believe what he says. I.e.That harness racing in nz has so many positives happening and things are shaping up well for the future. I had thought he was just someone who always talked positive,irrespective of the realities of whether that was the case or not. so the answer to why he always paints a picture was staring us in the face. personally I didn't recognise it, because i thought it is such an unrealistic outlook for anyone to have. but hey,how about that .

the field size thing is so obviously caused by the small number of horses trained in the northern region. so no point expecting anything to change in that respect. so the real question is are they going to continue to dilute the product be running the number of races they do. i understand the reasons they are trying to run more meetings,there are several positives for doing so, but there are also many negatives, such as diluting the product which leads to a less attractive betting product which leads to less turnover and greater losses ,given the stake level being paid.. really ,realistically the current way they are doing things is obviously unsustainable. Its surprising that those in charge have not already realised the obvious.Hopefully theres a workable compromised solution in a different form that maintains the positives and reduces the negatives. However ,hrnz seem to be doubling down on unsustainable and have instead expanded the running of more meetings everywhere. Just look at southland,they run extra meetings over the winter and claim thats an overall success,wothout even knowing how that will impact horse numbers or longevity,over the next 12 months. And of course they also need to evaluate whether the extra southland meeting turn into profit or loss generating for the industry. from a betting point of view. I'm not a big punter anymore,but i have changed my focus over the last 12 months to south island galloping meetings,because they are a far better betting product. Especially the synthetic track meetings as the form is very consisten, with the fuller fields and being run on consistent track conditions. The grass tracks are consistent enough as well,you just have to categorise the form based around prevailing traxck conditions.I would rather prioritise the harness,but 7 horse harness races run on tracks with a leaders bias and with a $2 favorite just don't compare the 12 horse galloping races with $5 favorite,like you get currently in the south island. The south island gallops have stakes almost double what you get in harness and over double in betting pools for comparable races, because they haven't diluted the product with excess race meetings.

i think the problem was the people who designed the southern surge conditions,apparently the southern people,appeared to want the likes of house and jones to support their meetings regularly,but exclude them from the opportunity to race for the southern surge stakes. Like i said at the time they announced thoses condition clauses. why the double standard from southland. They happily enocurage trainers,who they hardly ever see throughout the year, from outside the district, to come and compete in their high stake racedays and yet they want to exclude trainers who regularly support their low stake racedays throughout the year,when they have a mid stake day. So really,the trainer locations shown was a symptom of an unfiar cause. So the people who designed the clauses,which hrnz said at the time was the southern people, are the ones who should get the blame,in my opinion.

well it looks like the souther surge has turned out to be a successful promotion. over double the number of horses racing at the meeting this week in southland, than what raced at the same time last year. What surprises me is that the amount of horses racing ,who have already been racing most of the year. One thing i've noticed over the years is horses who have previously raced most of the year,then keep racing over winter,well theres a pattern ,which is their form will drop off once it warms up,if they keep racing. Which seems predicatble as racing and training in winter is harder on a horse. But the southern surge has brought all the southland horses out of the woodwork. The next question will be,how will that impact the numbers running later in the year. They aren't machines. Also, How come the likes of michael house and mark jones are now recorded as training from invercargill. They have obviously found a way of getting aroung the only horses south of the waitaki clause. the clauses said-the horses had to either be based with a trainer domilciled south of the waitaki as at 1 july or trained by a trainer located south of the waitaki. So obviously looking at the horses house and jones have entered ,they were not based with a trainer as at 1 july as they were racing in canterbury. so that means HRNZ have changed it to show that house and jones are now located in invercargil. In other words it appears whereas previously they always said they were located in canterbury,but the horses under the care of a southland trainer,they are now saying house and jones are actually located in invercargill.. Has the souther surge resulted in a change in how HRNZ now record where trainers are located. Like if i any trainer was to go on holiday in invercargill for a month,and take their horses ,does that mean they can get their training base changed to show invercargill and thus qualify for any area limiting southland series. I guess so.. another strange thing that seems to be occurring at hrnz. One of many.

i agree its obviously easier watching on tv. i don't agree theres always penty of hard luck stories behind you if you win one. I'm happy to debate what i think are the most important qualities needed to be a successful driver.. 1)assessing the current form and abilities of the horse your driving and how that compares with those in the same race. In other words driving the faster horses in any particular race gives you more tactical options than if driving a horse of lesser abilities. 2)being able to judge pace is a very important skill for any driver-obviously knowing when to make a move based on tempo in a race and having the ability to drive a horse at a consistent speed is important. Horses are like cars,if you drive them stop /go they will run out of gas earlier than if you driver them at a consistent speed within their comfort zone. 3)confidence-drivers need self confidence in their own abilities as well as their horses abilities. 4)Making split second decisions is something the drivers who are out there a lot,have a natural instinct of getting right. But to blame any poor decision making on having to make spilt second decisions at points of the race where the horses have run in the same posiotons for some time,well thats just a poor excuse in my opinion.In every race every driver would be constantly assessing whats going on around them ,how their horse is travelling and what they anticpate will be their next move and the next move of those around them. They will be thinking what plan b and c are if plan a isn't able to eventuate because of where they are positioned in the run. 5) important is whether horses run for you. Some horses will run for anyone,some not,but most are in between. Horses think like people. For example,drivers may be assessing the horse as they stand beside them before they get into the cart,when they warm up and when they run the race,but it works both ways. The horse will be assesssing the driver,especially in the warm up.Some horses can be just as complicated as people in how they think. The horses also feed off the confidence and expectations of the driver.I'm certain,that horses,especially those who have raced a bit,know when they're in with a chance and will try ever so hard,but they also realise when they aren't in with a chance and will look after themselves. I'm sure a good genuine horse wants to win as much as the driver and they are the easier ones to drive,but there are others who can bludge a bit if they have a negative driver or a driver with no confidence.The bludgers tend to get that way because of a(vconsistent negative driving or b)they aren't good enough and don't want to overstrain themselves. A good horse will get just as pissed off with interfernce as a driver may. I remember we once had a horse who 3 weeks in a row,copped interference and bad checks through no fault of his. He was a kind,gentle horse,but i remember the 3rd time in a row he came back in and was so pissed off .he was biting and kicking out,totally out of character,just pissed off with the interference he had got at the start. 6)finally,obviously very important for the driver,is how the trainer presents his horse on the night. Again,how the horse views its trainers is a factor. A horse who wants to plase those that train it is a far easier horse to drive than one who doesn't get appreciated and feels undervalued by it trainer.And if a trianer has switched said horse on by giving it the right type of work,then its easier for the driver. but of course at the end of the day,everything can be a positive,but if the horse isn't fast enough it still won't win.

You say j grays horse wasn't going good enough at the time he switched off its back, to get boxed in to its inside. Well if you stop the video at the 300m point when b wilmmot switched to the inside,which i have,j garys horse was only a head behind the horse to its inside.Thats why it seemed such an obvious no brainer decision to pull to his outside and take the clear run. I mean it was pull out and your in the clear,or pull in and hope j grays horse stops. then, 100m later the reason why wilmott switched into a gap between horses,that quiclky closed as maynnard let his horse drift in,was because the j grays horse was still boxing him in. Shortly after that,it got to the point where the 2nd gap to the outside came ,but wilmott was already commited to talking an inside run amongst horses. but as you say,we all see things differently sometimes.

its very odd isn't it. In theory ,the conditions of sundays race could have seen a 1 win, 100 start trotter, who hadn't won for 5 years and was also driven by a concession junior,having to give last start winner,origin, a 20m start in that race. Or the 1 win 100 start trotter,could have been driven by a driver who hadn't driven a winner in 10 years,but wasn't a junior. And had that horse won,it would have got double the penalty rating points origin would have got for winning.

heres the simplest way to put it for you taku. what they did was they implemented a rule which allowed for "the handicapping process to change form its original state to one regarded as debased from sportmanship." the exact definition of corruption and thats based on what you said. (not me)i.e. taku are you now withdrawing that comment. Maybe your now saying they shouldn't be specifying any such allowable programming change in any race programming,as people should know how it works. lf thats the case,then how did that go for them,going by this thread and all the negative comments. And back to mark jones point,how is it fair or sportsmanlike to have a race like they had where other 1 win horses never had a chance of a let up ,even if they had been driven by the very person who drove origin on sunday. And why should a horse who wins a $16,000 race be treated better than one who's won a $10,000 race a few days prior. here i was,starting off by saying i thought that race was an example of a positive change in the new handicapping system,as it allowed horses who struggle in the 1 win grade to drop back to non win races,thus retaining their participation,when all along it wasn't.lol.